Opinion
CV 21-7016 MRW
11-10-2021
Valencerina v. Costco
Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: ORDER DENYING REMAND MOTION
1. For the reasons stated during the video hearing today, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs motion to remand this action. (Docket #11.) The unrebutted declaration of Defendant's attorney - buttressed by the agreed-upon disavowal of an intended remand motion - convince the Court that Plaintiffs attorney did not satisfy the pre-filing meet-and-confer requirements of Local Rule 7. (Docket # 9 at 5; # 15 at 2; L.R. 7-10.)
2. The Court declines at present to take up the substance of the defense's contentions regarding the adequacy of the Doe defendant pleading in the complaint or the allegations of fraudulent joinder. I note that an adequately pled allegation of potential culpability by a non-diverse defendant may be sufficient to lead to remand. Loya v. Costco Wholesale, No. CV 20-9354 DMG (JCx), 2020 WL 7247782 at *2 (CD. Cal. 2020) ("the Court may consider the Doe Manager and Doe Employee's citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction"); Lacombe v. Costco Wholesale, No. ED CV 20-2486 JGB (SHKx), 2021 WL 3208031 at *3 (CD. Cal. 2021) ("suspicion of amendment for the purpose of destroying diversity jurisdiction is not an important factor" in court's analysis; "Defendants asserting fraudulent joinder bear a heavy burden because there is a general presumption against finding fraudulent joinder") (cleaned up); Oken v. FCA U.S. LLC, No. CV 1892 MRW, 2020 WL 2614613 at *2 (CD. Cal. 2020) (a "thin claim against [a] local defendant" asserted to "keep a state law case in state court" is "a legitimate strategic choice that Plaintiffs - as masters of their pleading - may lawfully pursue").
3. The parties will promptly conduct discovery and comply with their discovery and complaint amendment (if needed) obligations within the deadlines previously set by the Court at their request.